Blog

Another year over, and what have we done? Yes, 2018 is at an end. We can look back at the past, and forward to the future, and celebrate an arbitrary date chosen to begin a new year – January 1. People will make (and break) resolutions, promise things will be better in the new year, and proceed to do the same things the way they always do them, because the new year isn’t magic. There is no reason to expect things will change, because New Year’s Day is an imaginary day…oh, the day actually exists, but there is no reason to believe things start over that day. It’s really just another day to which we have chosen to add significance.

I am not going to spend this day mourning the passing of yet another ex-presidents. Ex-presidents come and go, live and die, sleep and eat, and these are not points for me to mark. They are irrelevant.

At a meeting today, I was listening to a millennial give a speech about important things. Really important things. And he had figured out they were important, which is sort of what he talked about at the beginning of his very important talk. He stated that his generation doesn’t know where rights come from. They just think they were part of the natural process, and that they will always be there. I sat up and took notice. Why? Because that is a phenomenon I have noticed myself. Not just about ordinary rights, either, like speech or religion or not having soldiers quartered in my home (I use that one every day, I tell you. Just yesterday, I had to turn away an army who wanted to camp out in my spare bedroom.) They don’t understand about the specific rights that pertain to them, the amount of work that went into gaining those rights, and the danger to those rights if we are not eternally vigilant. They have no idea that rights were not always there, or that rights could go away.

There is a strange phenomenon that I encounter on a regular basis – people want to talk politics! Oh, wait, no, reverse that. I find it strange when people living in a democracy, or more accurately a democratic republic, say “I’m not political”. They clap their hands over their ears if you so much as mention the local school board election; if you get to the level of Senators or Presidents, they will rudely hum, sing, or burp until you stop. They treat you as a pariah, someone weird and out of touch, if you know who is running for the City Council, and if you can name both of your senators, you are regarded as ready for the insane asylum, complete with straight jacket. Don’t even get me started on what they want to do to you if you can name senators from other states.

I’ve been feeling a bit peeved lately. It seems the pundits and political analysts are not reading my column! And they keep repeating the exact same things over and over, the things they’ve been saying for two years now. If they would read my blog, and understand it, they might not be getting things so wrong.

I love election night. I’ve loved it since 1962, when I sat mystified as the voters had their say on something called the Stanley Plan, which was going to redraw our legislature to comply with the Supremes’ command that state legislatures conform to one man (as would then have been said), one vote.

Does religious freedom mean the freedom to decide what kind of Christian you will be? Some people believe this – that religious freedom applies only to Christians. Others are somewhat magnanimous, extending that freedom to all the religious. Then there are actually those who think, gasp, that religious freedom extends to everyone, including the non-religious, and includes the freedom not to believe. (By the way, this is what the authors of the First Amendment believed, but you won’t find that in Scalia’s “original intent”).

The shunning of those who do not agree has a long history, dating back to as far as we have records. Refusal of service for those you dislike or disagree with has been on the Republican wish list for some time, and in a recent Supreme Court case, they got at least part of what they want (more on that in a later column!) when the court allowed a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple. In addition, a number of so-called religious freedom acts have been enshrining the right of people to refuse service to those they disapprove of on religious grounds…usually same sex couples, but also women who want birth control, mixed race couples, trans-people, and any others who meet the definition of religiously unacceptable. Many on the left are using this as justification for refusing service – we’re simply doing to them what they have demanded. Just make it on religious grounds, some say. Others say they have an ethical imperative not to serve evil people.

Hi, there, “coastal elites”. A message for you from flyover country. I’ve been living here for most of my life now (like, decades!) and I have been watching with fascination as the pundits have been fingering you for being out of touch, misguided, and contemptuous of those of us here in the heartland. I would just like to add my voice to the mix, as someone who has actually lived in flyover country (unlike most of the people writing the pieces about flyover country, who have mostly flown over, and decided to stop over for a night or two and talk to the first six people they met before they hopped back on the plane to write a piece about flyover country from the enormous experience they had just acquired).

About that time, I found myself wondering whether these street protests were going to become a regular feature of the Stable Genius’ tenure in office, as with the Vietnam and civil rights era protests; extended campaigns such as these require a considerable attention span and public stamina, qualities which meseems are difficult to find huge quantities of in America today.

I was reading an article related to the Janus case – you know, the case working its way through the Supreme Court related to unions. The gist of the matter is whether unions can collect fees from non-union members to cover the costs of negotiations, since non-union members benefit from the negotiations. In the past, the Supreme Court has upheld this practice, and 21 states currently have that provision. This case is asking them to reconsider it, alleging that it is a violation of the free speech of non-union employees who might object to the political activities of the union. The money collected for the fees is supposed to be used solely for the purpose of negotiations.

I do not think a week has gone by this past year (hardly a day has gone by) that I haven’t been enlightened and uplifted by some amazingly creative, intelligent, and insightful pundit telling the world what he, and he alone, had been clever enough to spot about the recent strange election – Hillary did it.

Logicians tell us that the “slippery slope”, an argument which posits that one seemingly reasonable concession on societal values, or most any argument, will lead to less reasonable and more destructive consequences, is a weak one. And it causes this writer considerable discomfort to admit that our President got something right; thus, this post begins life with two strikes against it.

Last week my inner political junkie kicked in, and I decided to watch some late-night C-SPAN. What they offered me was watching a young lady with the same unusual surname as a well-known ABC financial reporter holding forth on the administration’s regulatory policies. I had just finished reading a magazine column by a man with the same unusual surname as an even better-known CNN anchorman. My apologies to all concerned if I jumped to an incorrect conclusion, but it occurred to me that these might be relatives, perhaps even children, of their entrenched media celebrity sires. That’s called nepotism, and it’s still nepotism even if you’re the finest political analyst of your generation.

Whenever one happened by our neighborhood grocery store all summer, parked there in the outlying area that employees use was a pickup truck decorated with stickers of the Confederate battle flag and captioned with the friendly reminder that “If this offends you, you need a history lesson”. Now, I’m not sure that the stickers offended me, exactly—“annoyed” seems the more appropriate verb—since, having earned somewhere north of 125 college credit hours in history, I’m certain that said stickers were not directed at me, as I’m sure the owner of the truck would agree if he were informed of the fact.

Well, Hillary’s book is out, and the critics are all over it…hating the book, hating Hillary, telling Hillary to go away already. This critique was not leveled at Bernie Sanders when he wrote his book after losing the primary. It was not leveled at Al Gore after winning the votes but losing the election (in fact, Al Gore has made two movies since the 2000 debacle). Michelle and Barack Obama have both signed large contracts for books. Bill Clinton wrote a book about his experience in the presidency. While these books were not loved by all (but by some, of course), there was no almost unanimous outcry that these major players on the political scene should just sit down and shut up. What’s the difference? The difference is Hillary.

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve watched or read some pundit or egghead tell me over the past two years that this time The Donald has gone too far and surely outraged the American people beyond their outmost limits, I’d be having two toppings on the pizza tonight and have enough left over to take the nephews for ice cream afterward. All this public outrage, of course, put him into the White House. And don’t let some spin doctor tell you that he’s become less popular whilst there—his favorability rating was 37% on election night, and, though it’s declined marginally at a couple of points, basically, there it still stands.

In recent decades, Republicans have developed a strong distaste for higher education. They criticize it at every turn, complaining about the liberal bias of universities. And they do seem to have a point; study after study has pointed to a strong tendency for liberal arts programs to hire mostly liberal professors. This fact has generated barrels of ink on forests worth of paper, decrying the propagandizing of our youth, and the refusal to hire conservative thinkers. Many liberal pundits and journalists appear to agree with them, chastising their own for the terrible refusal to allow conservative thought to get a hearing. I would like to join my voice to the noisy throng.

One of the common memes going around the punditry today is that the Democrats lost the election because of identity politics. This is meant to say that, because the Democrats are the party connected with Civil Rights for people of color and Equal Rights for women, they are making big mistakes and ignoring a group of hard-working, honest, tax-paying people - in short, white men. The commentary has routinely suggested that the Democrats should abandon this stance and start listening to the people variously termed "working class", "flyover country", "gun-owning, church-going patriots", or, in rare moments of honesty, "white men".